Israel OAP funding still in doubt

Dear Editor:

Beginning with the title, Patrick Allen’s Feb. 28 article (“OAP to restore study in Israel”) is incorrect and misleading. I would like to correct the erroneous information therein, which has already led several people to make plans based on false assumptions.

As I told Allen, there is nothing definite about our restoring formal OAP procedures for study in Israel. I explained that we are exploring, with input from the campus counsel, the use of a special waiver to enable students to go through the UCSD Opportunities Abroad Program to study in Israel. Any use of such a waiver by UCSD would first have to be cleared on several levels, including the campus counsel, the Chancellor’s office, the Office of the President and the systemwide Senate Committee on International Education. Because we have been working in good faith on behalf of students interested in studying in Israel, I agreed to speak with Allen. Unfortunately, he took that opportunity to make inaccurate statements on the subject.

Since last fall, the general practice in the Programs Abroad Office has been to share information with students about the options available in Israel outside of Education Abroad Program, along with the credit transfer process, and how to petition courses upon their return. Heeding both the UC systemwide policy and the continuing heightened State Department travel advisory for Israel (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_922.html), we have stopped short of implementing formal OAP procedures and forms that require our approval and signatures. We know that some UCSD students are following this advising path, enrolling in programs in Israel and transferring their credits back to UCSD.

We are aware that, along with the use of a strongly worded special waiver, a few private colleges and universities are allowing students to go to Israel, but that doesn’t apply to the University of California until or unless the current UC policy is changed.

As you know, the safety and security of UCSD students abroad is of the utmost importance to us, and our policies stem from this concern. Because we are aware that a few other institutions in the country are supporting their students studying in Israel, we have been revisiting the current policy about OAP advising for Israel.

I hope this clarifies our approach at this time.

— Bill Clabby

OAP Coordinator

Heteronormativity needs to be challenged

Dear Editor:

The principal members of Queer People of Color would like to correct some misconceptions about our Feb. 14 “Kiss-In” held on Library Walk. There’s been some confusion about what the Kiss-In was and why we held it. Partly this is due to the Guardian’s choice to discuss the event in the Opinion pages without bothering to run a story in the News section, but most of it, we feel, is due to the very things we’re fighting: homophobia and heteronormativity.

First: The Kiss-In is an annual event put on by QPOC, not, as has been reported, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer/Questioning Intersex Association. At the Kiss-In, we displayed images of same-sex affection, sold buttons and had same-sex couples kissing during passing periods. It speaks to the heteronormativity of our school that these activities should be seen as “provocation.”

Heteronormativity is a complex word that stands for a simple mistake: the idea that because straight is the majority, straight is the default. Why do people assume I’m straight unless I wear a rainbow? Why are there no same-sex Valentine’s Day cards in the bookstore? Why is same-sex affection considered so shocking that the Guardian writer conflated our Kiss-In with Student-Run Television pornography?

In her Feb. 28 opinion article (“Freedoms don’t have to be excercised”), Kelly Gilbert frames the Kiss-In as a free-speech demonstration to say, “Hey, we exist!” We do exist, obviously, but this was not the driving issue. Today’s culture displays a tolerance for our existence, but nothing more. The “Queer Eye” men can teach you how to propose to your girlfriend, but they themselves can’t marry. Will can have an NBC sitcom, but not a boyfriend on it. We can theoretically have queer relationships, but we can’t kiss in front of you while you’re eating.

Gilbert describes the Kiss-In as “borderline obscene.” But kissing, hugging and hand-holding hasn’t been considered anywhere near “obscene” since the ’50s — the 1850s. The idea that we have to confine this affection to private spaces is exactly the sort of homophobic hogwash we’re sick of.

The Kiss-In was not a demonstration of free expression; it was a celebration of something beyond existence: our love. It was a protest against an attitude that heterosexual PDAs are, at worst, a nuisance, while two dudes kissing on Library Walk are “a freak show.” The Guardian’s appalling response to us merely confirms how necessary the Kiss-In was in the first place.

For more information on QPOC and our activism, please e-mail us at [email protected].

— Lorie Delizo

— Alice Johnson

— Louise Ly

— Kevin Mann

— Rigo Marquez

— Ted McCombs

— Laura Yamaguchi

QPOC principal members

SRTV needs to pick one stance

Dear Editor:

I am writing in regard to Student-Run Television station manager Chelsea Welch’s letter to students in the SRTV case and the Guardian’s coverage thereof. I was quite surprised that the Guardian did not point out what seems to be Welch’s tapdance to avoid taking a real position. At first she tells us, “”We have never turned away a student and we never will.”” It seems as though she is taking a stand against the tyranny of the majority, as though she will make sure every student has a voice on her station. Later, though, she tells us, “”SRTV is student-run. Students pay for it. Students decide what they want to see.”” Now it sounds as though she’s trying to defend students’ rights to avoid paying for the production of films they would rather not see in the first place. Indeed, how many students are the “”enough”” needed to stop showing smut? Either of the positions she seems to take would be admirable in many ways, but it seems that Welch wants to take both of them! The real purpose of her letter seems to be to let the Koala staffers out to dry rather than state SRTV policy. What exactly is the station manager’s position — will she quash free speech at the behest of the mob, or will she continue to allow our increased fees to pay for what the majority seems to feel is either unethical or simply not cost-efficient?

— Marc A. Beherec

graduate student,

Department of Anthropology